Tuesday, December 8, 2009

It would certainly be to correct language. If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant. If what is said is not what is meant, then what ought to be done remains undone. If this remains undone, then morals and acts deteriorate. If morals and acts deteriorate, justice will go astray. If justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence, there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything.

That from Confucius when asked some 2,400 years ago what he would do if placed in charge of the Chinese government. (H/T: American Thinker via Foxfier)

George Orwell also had a big problem with the way language and terminology particularly in politics were twisted to the point of obfuscation, saying: “The decline of language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer.”

But decline it has in the 60 years since that Orwell quote. Mark Falcoff writing for NRO takes a look at some terms of which we are all familiar in the modern political and cultural arena and documents their respective devolutions and how they were made in Orwell’s words, “private definitions”.

In short, there is no underlying moral code upon which you can call to slow down the purges, attacks, manipulations, lies and threats. When faced with Christian nuts going overboard, one could always draw from the Bible and bring forth hundreds of quotes from Jesus telling them to love their neighbors, forgive others and show kindness towards their opponents. The global warming fanatics have no such foundation and can continue to do whatever it takes to suppress, threaten and distort.

That from KT on his post here regarding how the faith-based AGW zealots bear no resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition zealots.

The logic of the Inquisition, if not the practice itself, could be countered by the rock solid moral underpinnings of the Scriptures (the language or original raw data, if you will) that had been meticulously maintained by men who devoted their entire lives to preserving its purity.

There is no such countering the logic of the faith-based AGW zealots who have observed no such strict code which the scientific method and the concept of peer review were supposed to maintain. With such moral relativism at their disposal, there is nothing from which to argue the faultiness of their claims. The advancement of their agenda instead of principle or moral code becomes sacrosant